Microscope versus Telescope

I listened to a Conservative MP friend of mine blasting Michael Ignatieff in an interview today for living too long outside the country to be an effective Prime Minister.  When I jokingly said later that he was “shameless,” he responded with, “I know, but it’s the stuff they give us.”Alas, this is the stuff the PMO gives us all.  People are welcome to think whatever they like of the Liberal leader, but my contention is with the rationale itself.  Somehow we have accepted an argument into the public space that is both specious and non-intuitive.  Surely, Canadians want to be respected in the world and led by able visionaries that comprehend the various nuances of diplomacy in everything from trade with China to sophisticated partnering with the European Union.My friend’s own argument, if valid, would have meant that Lester Pearson wouldn’t have been up to the task.  Arguably one of the country’s most liked prime ministers, he was educated at Oxford, worked in Chicago, and served in various diplomatic posts, including Canada’s ambassador to the United States, for years.  In a speech shortly after becoming the Liberal leader, Pearson boasted about Canada’s place in a challenging world and ended by referring to the fact he had spent more time outside of Canada than in.  He received a standing ovation on that last point.Like Ignatieff, Pearson became a lecturer at the academic level (University of Toronto).  When McKenzie King decided it was time to have Canada develop its own unique voice on the world stage, he recruited Pearson as the First Secretary at External Affairs.  The university countered with a generous offer, but the budding diplomat left it behind as the allure of the world, and Canada’s place within it, increasingly occupied his thoughts.  He was posted to Washington, then London, England, where he remained until the war started in 1939.Lester Pearson assisted in the founding meeting of the UN and went on to become the president of its General Assembly.  His Nobel Prize came from his work in international diplomacy for the Middle East, not for some domestic dispute.He wanted the Canadian political class to comprehend the unique role his country could play and so he entered politics, eventually leading two coalition governments.  As PM, he brought about huge transformations in education, pension reform, unemployment and health insurance, and established the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism.  When first elected, he immediately journeyed to both Washington and London, England to heal the damage created by the previous Conservative government’s blunt dealings with those two powers.  When he retired, he was immediately asked by the World Bank to produce a major paper on international development (from which we got .7%).Stephen Harper is a man with a microscope – every move he makes is determined by domestic issues and is studied and polled in excruciating detail.  Michael Ignatieff, alternatively, brings a telescope and, as his speech to the Canadian Club today asserts, he sees Canada’s place in the world as a pursuit worthy of our best exploits.  Harper plots; Ignatieff prods.  Harper always wants to answer; Ignatieff is curious and likes to question.  The PM calculates his actions on the world stage in light of a domestic audience and how it will play; Ignatieff is careful domestically so as to build partners abroad.  These are two differing approaches and Canadians can choose whichever they like.  But “the stuff they give us” hardly belongs in this debate – Lester Pearson’s own performance puts a lie to the assertion.  It’s the microscope versus the telescope.  The slam from the PMO via my friend has no place in a national debate about how Canadians see themselves abroad and how the world sees Canada.  It’s just “stuff”.